Blog

WASHINGTON — The United States will end special exemptions that permit the purchase of Russian and Iranian oil currently in transit, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced Friday.

Speaking to The Associated Press, Bessent made clear that extending the Iranian oil waiver is completely out of the question.

“Not the Iranians,” Bessent stated. “We have the blockade, and there’s no oil coming out.”

“And we think in the next two, three days, they’re going to have to start shuttering production, which will be very bad for their wells,” he added.

The announcement arrives during heightened global tensions surrounding the U.S.-Israeli conflict with Iran, which has disrupted worldwide energy markets through the shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz.

Originally, the United States granted the Russian oil waiver in March to help steady international energy markets when crude prices climbed beyond $100 per barrel.

The Treasury Department had extended this waiver just two days after Bessent previously indicated at the White House that he would not continue the sanctions relief.

During his interview with AP covering the war’s effects on global energy markets, the treasury secretary clarified his earlier position shift and definitively rejected any future sanctions relief for both nations.

Bessent explained that during recent World Bank and International Monetary Fund meetings, “More than 10 of the most vulnerable and poorest countries came to me and said, ‘Can you help?’”

“It was for those vulnerable and poor countries. But I wouldn’t imagine that we’d have another extension. I think the Russian oil on the water has been largely sucked up,” he said.

Texas officials received approval Friday from a federal appeals court to begin implementing a contentious state immigration law that grants local authorities power to arrest individuals suspected of crossing the border without authorization.

The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voted 10-7 to reverse a 2024 court order that had prevented implementation of the legislation, which the previous Biden administration had legally contested.

While President Trump’s team withdrew the federal challenge, opposition to the Texas measure designated as SB4 has continued from immigration advocacy organizations Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center and American Gateways, along with El Paso city officials.

Governor Greg Abbott signed the legislation into law in December 2023, establishing illegal border crossing or re-entry into Texas as a state offense. The measure grants state judges authority to order deportation of violators, with potential prison terms reaching 20 years for those who fail to comply.

Following a February 2024 preliminary injunction that blocked implementation, the matter reached the Supreme Court, which temporarily permitted enforcement before the 5th Circuit quickly suspended it again for additional consideration.

A three-judge panel from the 5th Circuit maintained the injunction in July 2025, determining the state legislation would conflict with federal immigration enforcement authority.

However, the complete appeals court, recognized as among the nation’s most conservative, decided to review the case again following pressure from Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.

In Friday’s decision, U.S. Circuit Judge Jerry Smith stated that immigration advocacy groups voluntarily choosing to expand their representation of affected immigrants did not establish their legal standing to contest the law.

“When enterprising plaintiffs repackage a generalized grievance as an ‘injury,’ courts should rightly exercise caution,” Smith wrote in an opinion joined by all but two of the court’s Republican-appointed judges.

Paxton celebrated the decision in a public statement. “Texas’s right to arrest illegals, protect our citizens, and enforce immigration law is fundamental,” he said.

Legal representatives for the challenging parties have not yet provided responses to requests for comment.

Seven judges issued dissenting opinions, including U.S. Circuit Judge Priscilla Richman, appointed by Republican President George W. Bush, who argued that a 2012 Supreme Court precedent established federal law’s supremacy over Texas legislation.

“Texas cannot enact its own immigration regime,” she wrote.

PORTLAND, Maine — Maine’s governor has rejected legislation on Friday that would have established the nation’s first statewide ban on large-scale data center construction.

The Democratic-led legislature had approved the measure, which would have halted construction of major data centers for over a year while establishing a special committee to help communities evaluate future developments. However, Governor Janet Mills blocked the legislation because it didn’t exempt a planned facility in Jay, where jobs are desperately needed following a mill closure.

While lawmakers in more than ten states have proposed similar construction freezes, Maine’s bill was the only one to successfully navigate through an entire legislative chamber. These proposals typically face strong pushback from development companies, business organizations, technology corporations, worker unions, and power companies.

Mills announced plans to establish a review committee through executive action to study data center impacts.

“I believe it necessary and important to examine and plan for the potential impacts of large-scale data centers in Maine, as the use of artificial intelligence becomes more widespread. Given the serious conversations about data centers here and around the country, I believe this work should commence without delay,” she said in a statement.

Several local governments and counties nationwide have implemented their own construction pauses, with opponents of state-level bans arguing that local officials should retain authority over these decisions within their communities.

The governor’s rejection sparked criticism from fellow Democrats, including the bill’s author and organizations advocating for cautious data center development. Representative Melanie Sachs, who introduced the legislation, stated that Mills is “resisting the will of a majority of Maine people” through her veto.

“While a veto might protect the proposed data center project in Jay, it poses significant potential consequences for all ratepayers, our electric grid, our environment, and our shared energy future. This decision is simply wrong,” Sachs said.

Community opposition to data center developments has grown rapidly even as high-ranking officials champion artificial intelligence and technology expansion. The Trump administration and numerous state leaders promote these facilities as crucial economic drivers and national security assets necessary for competing with China in the AI sector.

However, residents increasingly question the massive energy consumption of these facilities, while experts warn of potential power grid failures in mid-Atlantic regions within the coming years.

A groundbreaking decision by the Trump administration to move state-licensed medical marijuana into a lower-risk drug category has generated both praise and disappointment among criminal justice reform advocates who say it doesn’t go far enough for those behind bars.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche signed the executive order on Thursday, but the directive doesn’t change existing penalties for marijuana possession and sales, nor does it help those currently serving lengthy prison terms for cannabis-related crimes.

“While this is a victory, the fight is far from over,” said Jason Ortiz, director of strategic initiatives for the Last Prisoner Project, a nonprofit focused on cannabis criminal justice reform.

Those pushing for marijuana legalization and prison reform argue this directive, which stops short of full decriminalization, primarily helps cannabis researchers, cultivators and large marijuana companies. Meanwhile, thousands of people — disproportionately people of color — continue serving severe sentences for marijuana offenses or struggle with the lasting effects of having convictions on their records.

Reform advocates are now urging Congress and state legislators to take meaningful action to ensure those with marijuana convictions receive equitable treatment or complete pardons.

The order moves state-licensed medical marijuana from its current classification as a highly dangerous substance to a less restrictive category. This significant policy change, previously considered by Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden, removes cannabis from the same classification as heroin.

However, the order doesn’t make marijuana legal for medical or recreational purposes. Instead, it transfers licensed medical marijuana from Schedule I — designated for substances with no medical value and high abuse potential — to the more lenient Schedule III classification. This change will likely provide licensed medical marijuana businesses and researchers with substantial tax relief and fewer regulatory hurdles for standard operations.

Almost no federal inmates are incarcerated solely for marijuana possession, but many serve time for large-scale possession, trafficking charges, or a combination of both.

Hector Ruben McGurk, 66, has been serving a life sentence without parole since 2007 for transporting thousands of pounds of marijuana and money laundering. He’s currently held in Beaumont, Texas, more than 800 miles from his son’s home in El Paso. His imprisonment has taken a toll on his son, according to McGurk’s daughter-in-law, Ferna Anguiano, and the distance creates logistical challenges for family visits.

While the family sees the order as potentially hopeful, given their belief that McGurk’s sentence far exceeds his crimes, Anguiano doesn’t know how to advocate for his release.

“His release date is death,” Anguiano said. “I mean, we see all this stuff on the news — bigger cases, fatal cases — and people are going in and out of prison and coming out to their families.”

The family maintains contact through phone calls and a prison messaging system, but they worry about McGurk’s health and diabetes care. Having him return home would be a miracle for them.

“He deserves a second chance,” Anguiano said. “Yes, it was a poor decision he did in his lifetime. He was younger. But he is not a bad person. I think it’s fair to say he has served enough time for it.”

Drug policy experts say it’s unclear whether sentences would differ if marijuana had always been classified differently.

“In addition to schedule-specific penalties, there are marijuana-specific penalties that have nothing to do with the schedule,” said Cat Packer, director of drug markets and legal regulation at the nonprofit Drug Policy Alliance. “Even if marijuana were to be moved to Schedule V, those criminal penalties would still exist and there are mandatory minimums for simple possession.”

Reducing marijuana stigma has been a bipartisan concern for years. Obama reduced sentences for approximately 1,900 federal inmates, nearly all imprisoned for nonviolent drug crimes. Biden pardoned 6,500 people convicted of marijuana use and simple possession on federal property and in Washington, D.C. President Donald Trump’s administration has granted far fewer drug-related clemencies and lacks a comprehensive policy directing such actions.

“What many people on the right and the left would like is to move marijuana from this ‘just as bad as heroin’ category and to just sort of de-schedule it entirely,” said Marta Nelson, director of sentencing reform at the Vera Institute of Justice. “Regulate it like you do alcohol or tobacco.”

Research indicates Black Americans face arrest for marijuana possession at rates 3.7 to 4 times higher than white Americans, despite similar usage patterns across racial groups. While federal marijuana cases are relatively rare today, those serving federal drug sentences are predominantly Hispanic and Black, according to Justice Department and Bureau of Justice Statistics information.

This racial disparity in drug convictions echoes 2010 legislation Obama signed that reduced sentencing differences between crack cocaine and powder cocaine. Trump made those changes apply retroactively in 2018.

Since state medical marijuana license holders are mostly white, the tax benefits from rescheduling will likely advantage predominantly white businesses, Packer noted. Many equity programs won’t apply to these benefits.

“This is going to, in my mind, widen the gap, the financial disparities, the business disparities that currently exist between Black and brown, Latino and white owners in the cannabis industry because licenses were not distributed equitably,” Packer said.

Theoretically, Trump could issue broad pardons similar to those for January 6 participants, but Nelson considers this extremely unlikely.

“Having marijuana convictions on the record for things like mass immigration enforcement is helpful to the administration,” Nelson said.

A meaningful next step would involve Congress creating comprehensive legislation addressing existing marijuana convictions, record expungements, and industry regulations, she added.

The Last Prisoner Project and other organizations plan to restart discussions with federal lawmakers, including the Congressional Cannabis Caucus, which includes Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar and Republican Rep. David Joyce. They’ll also continue pushing Trump to grant large-scale commutations and clemency.

Advocates hope Trump’s order will encourage every state to reconsider their marijuana classifications and penalties.

“It is imperative that every state review their situation, as a lot of their controlled substances at the state level are tied to the federal government,” Ortiz said. “We’re gonna see other states that are going to need a little help from the public to remind them what the right thing to do is.”

The Empire State launched legal action on Friday against federal transportation officials who are holding back approximately $74 million in road funding because New York won’t cancel thousands of commercial driving permits issued to immigrants that federal auditors have deemed problematic.

The legal challenge puts New York alongside California in opposing Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy’s campaign to strengthen oversight of immigrant commercial driving credentials and ensure states are properly implementing current regulations.

Federal transportation officials haven’t yet responded to the latest court filing, but they’ve made their concerns clear about discovering serious issues with more than half of the 200 licenses they examined. Auditors uncovered major problems including permits that stayed active well beyond when immigrants were legally permitted to remain in the United States.

This controversy gained national attention following a deadly August accident in Florida where a truck operator who Duffy claims should never have received driving privileges made an illegal U-turn that resulted in three fatalities. California has already forfeited $200 million due to questions about its non-resident commercial licenses and enforcement of English proficiency standards for truckers. Additional states including Pennsylvania, Minnesota and North Carolina have received warnings that their funding could be at risk.

However, most other states have either met federal demands or are actively negotiating with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. Transportation officials have examined records for these non-resident commercial licenses across all 50 states.

New York’s top legal officer, Attorney General Letitia James, maintains the state correctly followed all applicable regulations when the commercial permits were originally granted, making license revocation unnecessary.

State officials conducted their own review of all questioned cases and determined that every license holder was legally authorized to be in the country when they received their driving credentials. After presenting these findings to federal authorities in January, James argues it’s unreasonable for Washington to deny funding that New York depends on for maintaining safe transportation infrastructure.

“By canceling this funding, the federal government is putting jobs and communities at risk. New Yorkers are counting on these investments, and we will not let the president jeopardize our communities’ safety,” she said.

Governor Kathy Hochul pointed out that reviews conducted during the previous Trump presidency verified the state was complying with federal requirements.

“Once again, New York is facing devastating federal cuts for nothing more than political payback,” Hochul said. “Ripping away money that goes toward critical safety upgrades on our roads is reckless and it is illegal.”

Beyond removing unqualified operators from highways, Duffy has spearheaded initiatives targeting questionable driving schools and pursuing trucking companies that break regulations only to rebrand themselves and continue operating.

Prior to these actions, the current administration announced plans last summer to begin enforcing existing requirements that truck operators demonstrate adequate English communication abilities. Duffy emphasizes these language capabilities could be vital during police stops or following accidents to ensure drivers can effectively communicate with law enforcement about incidents and any hazardous materials they’re transporting.

Industry organizations have supported these enforcement efforts, arguing that too many unqualified operators who lack proper credentials have gained access to 80,000-pound commercial vehicles. This situation threatens highway safety for all travelers and tends to reduce driver wages when companies can hire immigrant truckers at lower pay rates.

Transportation trade associations have long advocated for greater system accountability and stricter standards governing who can establish trucking operations. For many years, anyone willing to pay several hundred dollars in fees and provide insurance documentation could start a trucking business.

Problematic companies might not face scrutiny until much later when the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration conducts audits of their operations.

While immigrants make up roughly 20% of all commercial drivers, these non-resident licenses available to immigrants represent only about 5% of total commercial driving permits, covering approximately 200,000 operators.

Immigrant advocacy organizations argue that many drivers are being unfairly singled out. Attention has focused particularly on Sikh truckers because both the Florida crash driver and another operator involved in a fatal California accident in October belong to the Sikh community. Multiple groups have filed lawsuits challenging California’s plan to cancel roughly 20,000 commercial licenses.

Last autumn, the Transportation Department introduced proposed emergency limitations that would drastically restrict which non-citizens could obtain licenses, but a federal court suspended the new regulations because they hadn’t completed standard rule-making procedures.

In response, Duffy unveiled a properly reviewed final regulation in February that tightens restrictions on immigrant commercial license eligibility.

Under the updated rules, only immigrant drivers holding H-2a, H-2b or E-2 visas can obtain licenses. H-2a visas cover temporary farm workers, H-2b applies to temporary non-agricultural workers, and E-2 is designated for individuals making significant investments in American businesses.

WASHINGTON — The entertainment news powerhouse that revolutionized celebrity coverage is now setting its sights on the nation’s political epicenter. TMZ has established a Washington D.C. operation, bringing its confrontational reporting style to lawmakers and government officials.

The timing seems almost overdue. A former reality TV personality currently occupies the White House for his second term, while his administration includes a former wrestling industry executive and a past “Real World” participant who was once filmed wearing only a towel. Multiple stars from various “Real Housewives” series recently visited Capitol Hill.

The gossip outlet’s Washington venture, dubbed TMZ DC, has already generated significant buzz online. Staff members now pursue politicians with the same aggressive tactics used on Hollywood celebrities, while encouraging citizens to submit candid photos of elected officials during their travels. One particularly viral moment featured Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina wielding a Disney wand at the theme park while airport security chaos erupted due to congressional delays on funding legislation.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth acknowledged the outlet’s presence during a Pentagon briefing on Friday, welcoming TMZ as “new members of our press group here” — a comment that appeared to subtly criticize established news organizations.

The relationship between the entertainment industry and political circles has always been complex, with mutual suspicion and misunderstanding as both spheres increasingly blend into one cultural phenomenon.

Previous attempts by TMZ to establish a Washington presence had failed. However, current circumstances may favor success this time around.

Donald Trump’s return to office further legitimizes the type of celebrity-focused culture that made him a tabloid mainstay for years. Additionally, Congress faces multiple scandals, with three members stepping down in April amid various accusations including inappropriate conduct and financial misconduct.

Recent Gallup survey data shows congressional disapproval has reached 86%, matching the highest level on record. Meanwhile, AP-NORC polling indicates only 33% of Americans support Trump’s job performance — a 9-point drop since his second term began.

Given such widespread distrust of Washington institutions, the real question may be why TMZ waited so long to expand here.

“I am legitimately surprised they weren’t already there,” said Ana Marie Cox, who wrote the Wonkette blog, which covered Washington with an irreverence that was rare in the early 2000s. “They’re actually a little bit late to the game.”

TMZ representatives did not respond to requests for comment.

Harvey Levin, the aggressive Los Angeles attorney and media personality who founded TMZ in 2005, continues leading the operation. He has maintained a complicated relationship with Trump over the years. Within ten years of its launch, TMZ gained notoriety through scandalous celebrity reporting, including early scoops on Mel Gibson’s antisemitic remarks during an arrest and Alec Baldwin’s harsh voicemail to his daughter.

The website, whose name refers to the 30-mile radius around Los Angeles’s historic entertainment district, truly made its mark by first reporting Michael Jackson’s death in 2009 and the substance abuse that contributed to it.

TMZ’s methods sometimes violate traditional journalism standards, especially regarding payment to sources. Such financial arrangements could potentially conflict with congressional ethics regulations. Levin has not disputed paying for information, a practice that mainstream news organizations typically avoid.

The outlet has also experienced notable mistakes, including incorrectly reporting that Beyoncé would perform at the 2024 Democratic National Convention.

However, some of TMZ’s initial Washington work has received praise.

Robert Thompson, a Syracuse University professor specializing in television and popular culture, called the Graham Disney World photograph genuinely newsworthy because it showed lawmakers absent from Washington during a political crisis. Graham’s office did not respond to comment requests.

TMZ published photos of politicians from both parties who left Washington during the recent congressional break that coincided with the Department of Homeland Security shutdown. Besides Graham, the site featured images of Democratic Senator Cory Booker from New Jersey and Representative Robert Garcia from California.

The outlet currently lacks congressional press gallery credentials, restricting its coverage to sidewalk interviews outside the Capitol or conversations in public building corridors — similar to its signature ambush-style celebrity encounters.

Some interviews provide entertainment for viewers who understand the format. In one recent video, Representative Troy Downing of Montana appeared puzzled by questions about a party hosted by the dating app Grindr before this weekend’s White House Correspondents’ Dinner.

“I don’t understand,” Downing said. “Are they a media company?”

Other encounters take unexpected, sometimes deeply personal turns. When Representative Lateefah Simon of California was asked about how lawmakers observe the 4/20 marijuana holiday, she discussed the anniversary of her father’s death.

“4/20 is the day that my daddy died,” she said. “My dad was an amazing man in San Francisco. I think about him every single time there’s 4/20.”

Sometimes the gotcha approach backfires. Representative Jared Moskowitz of Florida was among those photographed away from Washington during the DHS shutdown. He appeared at his son’s basketball game, prompting colleagues from both parties to defend him for prioritizing fatherhood.

During Friday’s briefing, TMZ’s Charlie Cotton embraced Hegseth’s rebranding of the “Department of War” and the administration’s claims about necessary military action in Iran. “Would you consider changing the name again to the Department of Peace since that’s what we’re all after?” Cotton asked.

Hegseth praised the “great question” and declared that “the one institution that should win the Nobel Peace Prize every single year is the United States military.”

The confrontational interview style isn’t entirely new. Veteran CBS journalist Mike Wallace frequently employed surprise interviews with unprepared subjects.

Before exposing the extramarital affair that ended Democrat Gary Hart’s 1988 presidential bid, Tom Fiedler confronted the Colorado senator in a Washington alley. Working for the Miami Herald then, Fiedler said he “didn’t set out to do that.”

“We simply found ourselves in that situation,” he recalled this week. “At that point, we knew that he knew we were there to observe what he was doing. Our feeling was we needed to let him know who we were so he wouldn’t think there was, in the worst case, an attempted assassin stalking him.”

Nearly four decades later, Washington journalism has transformed dramatically.

The Washington Post eliminated almost one-third of its workforce in February, delivering a devastating blow to the prestigious newsroom. Other publications are expanding. The website NOTUS is becoming The Star, aiming to fill the void left by the Post, particularly in local and sports reporting.

Cox, the former Wonkette writer, now lives in Austin, Texas. Looking back on her Washington years, she said her objective was to “demystify politics and show that these are people who don’t necessarily deserve our respect.”

However, she worries about coverage that emphasizes Washington’s cynical aspects. If launching Wonkette today, she said, “I don’t think I’d be as funny.”

“Funny is how we got here,” she said. “Making fun of Donald Trump did not work.”

Theories linking the deaths and disappearances of several American scientists have evolved from obscure internet discussions into a full federal investigation in just two months. By Friday, authorities were examining at least 12 cases, with both the FBI and congressional committees searching for potential connections.

During an April 16 news conference, President Donald Trump addressed questions about “10 missing scientists with access to classified stuff, nuclear material, aerospace, they’ve all gone missing or turned up dead in the last couple of months” and whether he believed the cases were related.

“Well, I hope it’s random, but we’re going to know in the next week and a half,” Trump responded.

Online theorists claim these individuals were deliberately targeted, possibly by foreign adversaries, due to their sensitive research in areas like astrophysics, nuclear technology, and pharmaceuticals. However, investigators have yet to discover concrete evidence linking the cases or proving coordinated criminal activity.

University of Maryland professor Jen Golbeck, who researches conspiracy theories, explained that connecting scientist deaths to sinister plots is a recurring theme in conspiracy communities.

“There are a lot of people who work for national labs and universities and government research centers and some of them will go missing or commit suicide or die,” she noted. “Any year you could take a bunch of those and name them as something sinister if you wanted to.”

While individual cases had previously attracted attention from internet investigators, the February 27 disappearance of 68-year-old William “Neil” McCasland, a retired Air Force general, intensified widespread speculation about potential connections. His military background and ties to UFO research communities particularly fueled these theories.

Following McCasland’s disappearance, online users began identifying additional cases of missing or deceased scientists, eventually reaching back to June 2022.

The Daily Mail amplified these theories on March 22, publishing a story about five individuals and declaring that “a chilling pattern has emerged after a string of US scientists died or went missing in recent months.”

Questions about the cases surfaced at a White House briefing on April 15, and Trump announced the following day that he had consulted with advisers and launched an investigation. FBI Director Kash Patel emphasized the significance of examining these connections during a Sunday Fox News appearance. The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has initiated its own inquiry.

“That’s pretty typical for how a lot of this stuff works, is that there are these fringe online spaces, they start it, it spreads, it gets picked up by … the more conspiratorial-minded politicians who do have platforms and makes its way onto more mainstream social media and then grabs that attention,” Golbeck observed.

Callie Kalny, co-director of Northwestern University’s Center of Media Psychology and Social Influence, confirmed these conspiracy theories follow typical patterns of migration from niche platforms to mainstream discourse.

“Once it’s made it to the mainstream and once we experience this repeat exposure to it, it sort of just embeds into our minds as something that maybe we just take as fact or we just take as something that is common knowledge without ever really critically thinking well, where did this come from to begin with? And is there any validity to this?” she explained.

While the dozen individuals central to these theories share some similarities, including connections to Los Alamos National Laboratory and NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, along with specialized expertise and security clearances, the evidence contains significant inconsistencies that challenge online claims.

Several cases have already been resolved through investigations, with suspects identified or arrested. Others lack apparent connections or compelling evidence.

MIT physicist and fusion researcher Nuno F.G. Loureiro appears on the list after being fatally shot December 15 by Claudio Manuel Neves Valente, who had also carried out a mass shooting at Brown University days earlier before taking his own life. While no motive has been established, the two men had previously studied physics together in Portugal decades ago.

California Institute of Technology astrophysicist Carl Grillmair, known for discovering water on a distant planet, was shot and killed February 16, according to local media. Police arrested 29-year-old Freddy Snyder on murder and carjacking charges, and he remains held on a multi-million-dollar bond.

Melissa Casias, 53, vanished June 26 in New Mexico. Though she worked at Los Alamos National Laboratory, her LinkedIn profile shows she served as an administrative assistant, contrary to online assumptions that she was a scientist.

Regarding McCasland’s case, the Bernalillo County Sheriff’s Office reports he left home without his phone, prescription glasses, or wearable devices. His hiking boots, wallet, and .38 caliber revolver were missing from the house. Authorities have found no evidence suggesting foul play, and he remains missing.

McCasland’s wife, Susan Wilkerson, addressed online speculation in a March 6 Facebook post, explaining that since his retirement 13 years ago, McCasland “has had only very commonly held clearances” and “it seems quite unlikely that he was taken to extract very dated secrets from him.” She added that while he “had a brief association with the UFO community,” he possesses no special knowledge about extraterrestrials.

“In the face of tragedy or uncertainty, people seek patterns and explanations rather than accepting ambiguity or coincidence,” said Donnell Probst, executive director of the National Association for Media Literacy Education. “Narratives suggesting hidden connections or intentional wrongdoing can feel more satisfying than incomplete or evolving information, even without supporting evidence.”

The Department of Justice has officially closed its criminal investigation into Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, ending a controversial probe that centered on costly renovations to the central bank’s Washington headquarters.

The investigation began after a political firestorm erupted over the Fed’s multi-billion dollar renovation project of two historic buildings near the National Mall. The controversy started about a year ago when a New York Post article highlighted the project’s “lavish” amenities and its nearly $2.5 billion cost.

The timing coincided with then-President Trump’s public pressure campaign against Powell and the Fed to reduce interest rates. Elon Musk, who was leading the Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency at the time, immediately demanded an investigation. Republican senators, including Banking Committee Chairman Tim Scott, also accused the Fed of wasteful spending.

On June 24, 2025, Scott and other Banking Committee members wrote to Powell questioning renovation expenses they claimed included “rooftop garden terraces, ornate water features, new elevators that drop board members off directly in their VIP dining suite… rooftop Italian beehives” and other luxury features.

Powell appeared before the Senate Banking Committee the following day, testifying that reports about such extravagant amenities were false. Fed documents revealed the current budget exceeded the original 2020 allocation by approximately $1.1 billion, primarily due to post-pandemic inflation driving up material and labor costs. Additional expenses came from design modifications required by the national planning commission and unexpected issues like asbestos removal.

Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte escalated the situation on July 2, 2025, posting on social media that Powell’s testimony was misleading and warranted his removal from office “for cause.” He also demanded a Congressional investigation.

Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought joined the criticism on July 10, 2025, demanding Powell explain the renovations and suggesting the Fed had bypassed proper approval processes.

Powell responded on July 14, 2025, with a comprehensive explanation to Scott and top Banking Committee Democrat Elizabeth Warren. The Fed also published detailed cost breakdowns on its website, and Powell requested the Fed’s Inspector General conduct a new review of the project.

Three days later, Powell sent the same information to Vought. On July 24, 2025, Trump visited the construction site with Pulte, Vought, and Senators Scott and Thom Tillis for a Powell-guided tour, using the opportunity to again push for interest rate reductions.

In November 2025, U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro launched a criminal investigation focusing on alleged false statements in Powell’s July Senate testimony, according to court documents unsealed months later.

Powell revealed the DOJ investigation and related subpoenas in an unusual Sunday evening video statement on January 11, 2026, describing it as unprecedented intimidation designed to give the president influence over Fed monetary policy decisions.

The probe immediately drew widespread criticism as an attack on Fed independence. Senator Tillis announced he would block any Fed nominee while the investigation continued, with other Republican lawmakers expressing similar concerns.

Despite the ongoing investigation, Trump nominated Kevin Warsh as the next Fed chair on January 30, 2026, to replace Powell when his term expires May 15. Tillis maintained his blocking position.

A federal judge dealt a significant blow to the investigation on March 13, 2026, blocking the DOJ’s subpoenas and agreeing with Powell that the probe represented an improper attempt to pressure the central bank into cutting rates. Pirro announced plans to appeal the decision.

Powell declared his intentions on March 18, 2026, stating: “I have no intention of leaving the Board until the investigation is well and truly over, with transparency and finality.”

Prosecutors from Pirro’s office made an unexpected visit to the Fed’s renovation site on April 14, 2026, but were denied access.

During Warsh’s confirmation hearing on April 21, 2026, Tillis reiterated his position blocking the nomination. The next day, Pirro insisted her investigation would continue, with Trump expressing support, saying “we have to find out” how the building became so expensive.

On April 24, 2026, Pirro announced she would close the investigation and transfer it to the Fed’s Inspector General, who had already begun their own review at Powell’s request nine months earlier. “I will not hesitate to restart a criminal investigation should the facts warrant doing so,” she added.

President Donald Trump announced Friday that he intends to address several key issues with King Charles during the British monarch’s upcoming Washington visit, including concerns over Iran, NATO matters, and the United Kingdom’s digital services tax.

Speaking with Reuters in a telephone conversation, Trump indicated his willingness to cover a broad range of subjects. “I’m going to talk about everything,” the president stated. “I’m going to talk about it. He is a friend of mine, and he is a great guy.”

The British king’s four-day official visit begins Monday and will commemorate the 250th anniversary of American independence from Britain.

King Charles’ itinerary includes visits to Virginia, New York, and Washington, D.C., where he will hold private discussions with Trump and speak before members of the U.S. Congress.

The royal visit occurs during a period of strained U.S.-British relations, representing the most difficult diplomatic ties between the nations since the 1956 Suez Crisis. Trump has repeatedly criticized Prime Minister Keir Starmer for declining to participate in military action against Iran and has made disparaging comments regarding Britain’s defense capabilities.

Additionally, the president has warned of potential tariffs against Britain should Starmer refuse to eliminate the digital services tax.

A prestigious medical publication is refusing to participate in a U.S. Senate investigation examining the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, according to statements made by the journal’s top editor.

Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of The Lancet, announced during a Reuters interview in Barcelona on Friday that his publication will not comply with a Senate request for evidence related to the pandemic’s beginnings.

“We have received a request to go and give evidence at a Senate inquiry, which we’re not going to do,” Horton stated during the Reuters Pharma event.

The journal’s refusal stems from objections to how the previous administration handled prominent scientists, particularly Dr. Anthony Fauci, who spearheaded America’s pandemic response efforts. Horton explained that The Lancet would not cooperate “with an administration that has attacked some of the foremost scientists of our age.”

Dr. Fauci has endured ongoing threats and criticism from former President Donald Trump and Republican lawmakers since his tenure. Trump terminated Fauci’s federal security detail last year.

According to Horton’s February writings, The Lancet received a December 2025 request demanding all coronavirus-related documentation from 2018 through 2022, encompassing emails, research notes, and published studies. The journal Science received an identical request, as reported on their website.

The investigation is being conducted by Senator Rand Paul, who currently leads the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Paul has been examining U.S. financial support provided to a virology laboratory in Wuhan, China, where the pandemic first emerged in 2020.

Paul’s office has not yet responded to requests for comment regarding the journal’s refusal.

“They’re still perseverating over Wuhan and what took place there in the latter part of 2019,” Horton remarked.

While the World Health Organization and most scientific experts believe the pandemic likely resulted from natural transmission from animals to humans, investigations have been hindered by insufficient data from China. However, U.S. intelligence agencies concluded last year that a laboratory accident was the probable cause.

Federal officials announced Friday that the Justice Department will now permit executions by firing squad as the Trump administration works to expand and accelerate death penalty cases nationwide.

Officials also confirmed they are bringing back single-drug lethal injections using pentobarbital, the same method employed in 13 federal executions during Trump’s previous presidency — a record number for any modern president. The Biden administration had eliminated pentobarbital from federal execution procedures due to worries it might cause undue pain and suffering.

These policy changes represent part of a larger effort to increase federal executions following a pause during the Biden years. Just three individuals currently await execution on federal death row after President Biden commuted 37 death sentences to life imprisonment, while the current Trump administration has already approved seeking capital punishment for 44 defendants.

“The prior administration failed in its duty to protect the American people by refusing to pursue and carry out the ultimate punishment against the most dangerous criminals, including terrorists, child murderers, and cop killers,” Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a statement. “Under President Trump’s leadership, the Department of Justice is once again enforcing the law and standing with victims.”

According to the Death Penalty Information Center, federal execution protocols have never before included firing squad as an option. Currently, five states permit this execution method: Idaho, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Utah.

The pentobarbital procedure was originally implemented by Bill Barr, who served as attorney general during Trump’s first presidency, replacing a three-drug combination that had been used in the 2000s during the last federal executions prior to Trump’s initial term.

In the closing days of the Biden presidency, Attorney General Merrick Garland eliminated the pentobarbital injection policy following a government analysis of scientific and medical studies that revealed “significant uncertainty” about whether the drug causes unnecessary pain and suffering.

Under Barr’s direction in 2020, the Justice Department published Federal Register rules permitting federal executions through lethal injection or “any other manner prescribed by the law of the state in which the sentence was imposed.”

Various states authorize alternative execution methods, including electric chair, nitrogen gas inhalation, and firing squad.

A report issued Friday by the Trump administration stated the Biden administration “got the standard and the science wrong.” The previous administration’s conclusions, the report argued, “failed to address the overwhelming evidence” that pentobarbital injection causes individuals to “quickly lose consciousness—rendering him unable to experience pain.”

The three remaining federal death row inmates include Dylann Roof, who committed the 2015 racially motivated murders of nine Black worshippers at Mother Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina; Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who carried out the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing; and Robert Bowers, who killed 11 people at Pittsburgh’s Tree of Life synagogue in 2018 in what became the deadliest antisemitic attack in American history.

WASHINGTON – The State Department’s chief legal counsel has defended President Donald Trump’s military campaign against Iran, characterizing the strikes as justified self-defense rather than the initiation of a new conflict.

Legal Adviser Reed Rubinstein released his defense just days before a May 1 deadline requiring the Trump administration to either secure Congressional authorization for the military action under the 1973 War Powers Act or bring operations to a close.

Joint U.S. and Israeli airstrikes commenced on February 28, resulting in the death of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and significant portions of the nation’s leadership during the opening assault. Trump characterized the strikes at the time as necessary to eliminate Iranian missile capabilities, destroy the country’s naval forces, and block Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. The president also called on Iranian citizens to revolt against their government. The military action occurred just days after unsuccessful diplomatic negotiations between American and Iranian representatives.

Numerous international legal scholars contend the strikes violated the United Nations Charter, which prohibits member nations from using military force against other states unless authorized by the U.N. Security Council or conducted in legitimate self-defense.

Rubinstein argued that America was “engaged in this conflict at the request of and in the collective self-defense of its Israeli ally, as well as in the exercise of the United States’ own inherent right of self-defense.” He pointed to what he termed “Iran’s malign aggression over decades” dating back to the 1979 Islamic Revolution, including proxy attacks on American forces and Israel, Iranian missile strikes on Israel in 2024, and Tehran’s nuclear weapons development efforts.

“In truth, the United States is acting well within the recognized contours of international law relating to the use of force and self-defense,” Rubinstein stated.

Tehran has consistently rejected Western allegations that it seeks to develop nuclear weapons.

The legal justification, titled “Operation Epic Fury and International Law,” appeared on the State Department’s website Tuesday but was not distributed to news outlets or shared on official social media platforms, unlike typical department communications.

Tehran retaliated against the American and Israeli strikes by firing missiles and deploying drones against U.S. installations, regional allies, and commercial shipping, disrupting the critical Strait of Hormuz shipping lane. The conflict, which triggered energy market volatility and broader economic concerns, has been on hold since an April 8 ceasefire agreement.

Public opinion surveys indicate Americans oppose the military action, as citizens have experienced sharp increases in fuel, food, and consumer goods prices over the past two months. A Reuters/Ipsos survey published Friday revealed that most Americans hold Trump responsible for rising gasoline costs, which could hurt his Republican Party in November’s midterm elections.

More than 100 international legal experts issued a statement this month declaring the conflict’s initiation “a clear violation” of U.N. Charter provisions. “Despite the Trump administration’s varied and sometimes conflicting claims to the contrary, there is no evidence that Iran posed an imminent threat that could ground a self-defense claim,” the experts wrote, citing incidents including the bombing of a girls’ school believed to be a U.S. strike, killings of non-military political figures, and threats against civilian infrastructure.

Rubinstein maintained that the late February campaign represented “part of an armed conflict with Iran that has been ongoing for years” and argued it was not necessary to determine whether an Iranian attack on America or its allies was imminent.

“The U.S. has acted well within its international law obligations with respect to its use of force since operations began in late February. Iran, by contrast, has acted as any reasonable observer would have expected – lashing out against its neighbors, targeting Israeli civilians, murdering its own people, unlawfully closing the Strait of Hormuz, and wreaking havoc throughout the region,” Rubinstein declared.

Congressional staff members suggested Rubinstein’s statement was released to preempt the May 1 War Powers Act deadline. The legislation requires presidents to terminate military operations after 60 days unless Congress grants authorization to continue. Presidents may request a 30-day extension by providing written certification to Congress that continued military action remains necessary.

Democratic lawmakers, who hold minority status in both congressional chambers, have repeatedly attempted to pass resolutions ending the conflict until Trump secures congressional approval, but nearly all Republicans have voted to block these efforts.

WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court delivered a significant blow to President Donald Trump’s immigration agenda Friday, ruling that his executive order halting asylum requests at the U.S.-Mexico border violates federal law.

The three-member judicial panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit determined that existing immigration statutes guarantee migrants the ability to seek asylum protection at border crossings, and presidential authority cannot override these protections.

In their decision, the judges stated that the Immigration and Nationality Act does not give the president authority to deport plaintiffs through “procedures of his own making,” halt their asylum application rights, or limit processes for handling their anti-torture petitions.

“The power by proclamation to temporarily suspend the entry of specified foreign individuals into the United States does not contain implicit authority to override the INA’s mandatory process to summarily remove foreign individuals,” stated Judge J. Michelle Childs, who received her appointment from Democratic President Joe Biden.

White House officials have not yet provided a response to requests for comment on the ruling.

ACLU lawyer Lee Gelernt praised the appellate decision, saying in a statement that the ruling is “essential for those fleeing danger who have been denied even a hearing to present asylum claims under the Trump administration’s unlawful and inhumane executive order.”

Judge Justin Walker, appointed during Trump’s presidency, offered a partial disagreement with the majority opinion. He argued that immigration law provides protections against deportation to nations where individuals face persecution, but allows the administration to broadly reject asylum petitions.

However, Walker concurred with his colleagues that presidential powers cannot include sending migrants to countries where they face persecution or eliminating required procedures that safeguard against improper deportations.

Judge Cornelia Pillard, nominated by former Democratic President Barack Obama, also participated in hearing the case.

ST. PAUL, Minn. — State governments across America have dramatically enhanced security protocols at capitol buildings and expanded protection measures for elected officials following the shocking murder of Minnesota House Democratic leader Rep. Melissa Hortman nearly one year ago.

The enhanced security measures come as political violence has escalated nationwide, including Hortman’s assassination last June and the September murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk during a speaking engagement at a Utah college campus.

Minnesota’s state capitol now operates with most entrances secured, requiring all visitors to pass through metal detection systems before entry. Those wishing to observe legislative sessions from public galleries must clear an additional security checkpoint.

“It’s important for us to be able to not have our government fall apart if our legislators are under threat,” said Minnesota Rep. Julie Green, a Democrat who sits directly across the aisle from Hortman’s old desk, which remains empty except for fresh roses, her portrait and a speaker’s gavel. “It’s a complicated, complex, very emotional issue, as you can imagine.”

The violence against Hortman and Kirk represents part of a broader pattern of attacks on political figures, including a 2024 arson incident at Democratic Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro’s residence, an assassination attempt against then-candidate Donald Trump during a Pennsylvania campaign event in 2024, and the 2022 hammer assault on Democratic then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband at their California residence.

Currently, 25 states including Minnesota have established formal policies permitting political candidates to allocate campaign dollars toward personal security expenses. The majority of these changes occurred following the Kirk and Hortman killings. According to data from the National Conference of State Legislatures and the VoteMama Foundation, eleven states have enacted specific legislation, while others have implemented the policy through regulatory or administrative channels.

During this year alone, Alabama, Oregon, Nebraska and Utah have passed legislation authorizing campaign security expenditures. Approximately twelve additional states are currently considering similar proposals.

The trend extends beyond state politics. Congressional and presidential campaign security expenditures have increased five times over the previous ten years. According to an April analysis by the nonpartisan Public Service Alliance, federal political organizations allocated over $40 million for security-related costs during the 2023-24 election period.

Alaska installed metal detection equipment at its capitol facility last year, representing one of the most obvious indicators of growing concerns about political violence. Democratic Rep. Sara Hannan attributed the installation to “increased risk of violence in our public institutions.” State legislators approved the security measures prior to Hortman’s death.

However, certain states have resisted implementing stricter access controls to government buildings. Wisconsin Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, a Republican who had personal knowledge of Hortman, opposed proposals for metal detector installation in his state, explaining he preferred not to “fortify” the capitol building. According to a state audit, Wisconsin ranks among eleven state capitols operating without metal detection systems.

Minnesota legislators are also evaluating the creation of a specialized State Patrol division responsible for capitol security that would extend protection services to legislators, the state attorney general, secretary of state, state auditor, and Supreme Court justices.

Democratic Sen. John Hoffman, a primary sponsor of the legislation, survived being shot nine times during the same night Hortman was murdered. According to prosecutors, the perpetrator disguised himself as a law enforcement officer and initiated his attack by shooting Hoffman and his spouse, then traveled to two other lawmakers’ residences where they were not present. The gunman subsequently arrived at Hortman’s residence, where he killed both the representative and her husband, and injured their dog so severely that veterinarians had to euthanize the animal.

During Tuesday’s legislative hearing, Hoffman described his proposal as “a necessary response” that would “keep elected officials and Supreme Court justices safe and dedicate the resources necessary and hopefully stop future tragedies from happening.”

Multiple states have also implemented measures to safeguard lawmakers’ private information. North Dakota legislators discussed draft legislation Wednesday that would allow candidates and public officials to request confidential treatment of their home addresses.

The NCSL established a $1.5 million reimbursement program in February to cover legislature expenses related to lawmaker safety and security when they are away from state capitol buildings. According to NCSL spokesperson Katie Ziegler, more than 30 states have submitted applications or are preparing to do so.